|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 1, 2023 20:15:54 GMT
OK it can only ever be opinion, but there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Thatcher would have allowed a cross channel invasion. It would have been stopped immediately. And I'll tell you why...
a) Thatcher had bigger balls than any prime minister in my lifetime.
b) Her opposite numbers across the channel knew it.
And that's the big difference, it really isn't complicated. The illegal invasion continues apace not because of antiquated laws but because today we have weak politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 1, 2023 21:27:53 GMT
As she took exception to Argentinian gunboats coming to British shores uninvited, and made sure that they and their occupants were removed, however difficult dangerous and onerous the task, I can't see her turfing British students out of their lodging because a new day has brought a couple hundred Albanians or Libyans on the look out for free money, phone, and comfy accommodation on British soil. Not that Thatcher would have had a choice anyway, back in 1979 we were a very different country, every seaside town seemed to have at least 6 retired Colonels, vigilante patrols would have been organised, the coastline patrolled, and sufficient well numbered 'welcoming committees' on the beaches and harbours that civil unrest would have forced any Governments hand at the time ...... and that doesn't take into account mass protests in London every weekend, which would surely have engendered 'poll tax' levels of anger if we were stuffing our hotels with even a fraction of the numbers we take for granted now, nearly 50 years on. Thatcher to May ... chalk and cheese. I remember only too well back in 2018, reading somewhere that over the coming years we'd see politicians wringing their hands about the numbers coming to our country, 'it'll all be a sham, May has signed us up to the Migration compact' ....not that I knew what the hell that was at the time. Once again we are being sold down the river and can only the hope that this UN intervention is as ineffective as others before it have been. The word ‘control’, please note, appears nowhere in the final Compact document.
Under its humanitarian guise the aim of the pact is to make illegal immigration legal, to turn pathways which are now ‘irregular’ into regular ones: ‘We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility . . . with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.’
Worrying as well is that opposition to this regularisation of mass migration looks set to be ‘institutionalised’ as a hate crime. Objective 17 of the Compact reads: ‘Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration’.
link - Sold Down The River
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 1, 2023 22:07:56 GMT
Thatcher's coronation was in 1979 and yes Hutchyns in those days it was a very different county which is incredible when you consider in the scheme of things it was five minutes ago. This country has changed more over the past 30 years than it has over the past 200 years. The pace of change is incredible and it's not wanted or welcomed by the majority. This is building a sense of resentment that I'm not sure modern politicians are aware of or even care about, until an election obviously, but that's a moment in time. Electoral promises should be legally binding but are little more than jokes. Apologies, I may have digressed...
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 2, 2023 6:37:38 GMT
I think the problem is that the govt has been hijacked by the globalist Left wing - they installed Sunak - and they don't actually want to stop any migration (legal or illegal). All our main parties now are Left wing. Which is a problem because most of the country is Centre or Centre Right. If people vote according to policies at the next GE the Reform party will win by a mile, but the problem is that people are afraid of voting for the unknown. They're afraid that inexperienced politicians couldn't run the country - but it's the Civil Service who run the country. The job of the politicians is simply to make sure that they follow the right policies - and to fire them if they don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 2, 2023 7:20:36 GMT
the soviet model
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 2, 2023 8:06:51 GMT
Very doubtful I would have have thought.
One of the very first decisions of the new Thatcher government on coming into office in 1979 was to sanction the admittance of 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people. The numbers have swelled considerably since as shown by the proliferation of nail-bars and cannabis-farms.
Conservatives have never had any ideological objection to immigration, especially of the 'entrepreneural' type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 2, 2023 8:19:25 GMT
As she took exception to Argentinian gunboats coming to British shores uninvited, and made sure that they and their occupants were removed, however difficult dangerous and onerous the task, I can't see her turfing British students out of their lodging because a new day has brought a couple hundred Albanians or Libyans on the look out for free money, phone, and comfy accommodation on British soil. Not that Thatcher would have had a choice anyway, back in 1979 we were a very different country, every seaside town seemed to have at least 6 retired Colonels, vigilante patrols would have been organised, the coastline patrolled, and sufficient well numbered 'welcoming committees' on the beaches and harbours that civil unrest would have forced any Governments hand at the time ...... and that doesn't take into account mass protests in London every weekend, which would surely have engendered 'poll tax' levels of anger if we were stuffing our hotels with even a fraction of the numbers we take for granted now, nearly 50 years on. Thatcher to May ... chalk and cheese. I remember only too well back in 2018, reading somewhere that over the coming years we'd see politicians wringing their hands about the numbers coming to our country, 'it'll all be a sham, May has signed us up to the Migration compact' ....not that I knew what the hell that was at the time. Once again we are being sold down the river and can only the hope that this UN intervention is as ineffective as others before it have been. The word ‘control’, please note, appears nowhere in the final Compact document.
Under its humanitarian guise the aim of the pact is to make illegal immigration legal, to turn pathways which are now ‘irregular’ into regular ones: ‘We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility . . . with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.’
Worrying as well is that opposition to this regularisation of mass migration looks set to be ‘institutionalised’ as a hate crime. Objective 17 of the Compact reads: ‘Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration’.
link - Sold Down The RiverI think people find it hard to believe that things really are as bad as they are. They know things are bad, but many seem to be unaware that they are so bad that this eclipses just about any other threat to them. There is a certain amount of denial here because the evidence is so plentiful now. It is unbelievable that there would be an international (more or less) genocide project operated by bodies like the United Nations and incorporating the substantial co-operation of the UK government / establishment. It sounds like science fiction considering nothing of the sort was happening 50 years ago and we never voted for it and nobody ever specifically announced it. Accepting this means accepting we are already a banana republic with crackpots at the helm. This is a bitter pill to swallow - that we have already substantially failed in our duty and let something terrifying happen that should never have happened - that we are already failed state, a Zimbabwe. Consider that no government, of any stripe, has ever substantially stopped this or even set it back - not one victory in the entire story for the bulk of the UK population, who strongly want none of this at all, was ever allowed. The biggest red flag to me that this was more than just an average policy issue was what happened to the Conservative party after Blair's defeat. We had a conservative party (of sorts) before 1997, after 2010 it was gone. The British public at that point wanted a rest from New Labour's berserk, Chinese style 'march of progress', but there was no party tackling this issue and promising to undo the damage or even go in a different direction. This red flag has been reconfirmed to me with the current administration - no force on earth appears to be able to make the Conservative party enact anything like the popular will on this matter. The Conservatives party (as a whole) appear happy to allow their entire party be decimated if it means getting a few more thousand people into the UK. Conservatives are detaching from their party, Labour supporters are detaching from their party, the people are detaching from the government - all this to such a degree that it likely threatens civil disorder.. and yet the project continues regardless, as if spraying the UK public with non-English speaking, surly criminals and overloading our public services were the highest national policy priority imaginable |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Sept 3, 2023 7:51:50 GMT
When in 1978 Thatcher was asked during a TV interview what she would do if the miners went on strike and tried to bring down the government, as they did with Edward Heath, her reply was: "Well! One doesn't apply one's Final Solution until one's tried everything else!" Her supporters reacted favourably to this comment.
Now ... if the question had been about boat people coming here by the tens of thousands ... ?
As for the Ethiopian famine she said: "I heartily agree that something should be done about it ... but who's going to pay for it?"
A thought has just occurred to me ... all those mines she closed ... plenty of space to house illegal immigrants!
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 3, 2023 9:55:17 GMT
Very doubtful I would have have thought. One of the very first decisions of the new Thatcher government on coming into office in 1979 was to sanction the admittance of 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people. The numbers have swelled considerably since as shown by the proliferation of nail-bars and cannabis-farms. Conservatives have never had any ideological objection to immigration, especially of the 'entrepreneural' type. We're not talking about 'immigration', and 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people were a drop in the ocean compared to the current illegal invasion from the EU. Personally I think it's an absolute no brainer. Anyone who thinks Thatcher would have allowed an illegal invasion from the 'safe' EU to continue, doesn't remember Thatcher. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Sept 3, 2023 11:52:14 GMT
Very doubtful I would have have thought. One of the very first decisions of the new Thatcher government on coming into office in 1979 was to sanction the admittance of 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people. The numbers have swelled considerably since as shown by the proliferation of nail-bars and cannabis-farms. Conservatives have never had any ideological objection to immigration, especially of the 'entrepreneural' type. "Thatcher had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting them" She tried "every trick in the book" to avoid accepting them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2023 13:44:31 GMT
OK it can only ever be opinion, but there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Thatcher would have allowed a cross channel invasion. It would have been stopped immediately. And I'll tell you why... a) Thatcher had bigger balls than any prime minister in my lifetime. b) Her opposite numbers across the channel knew it. And that's the big difference, it really isn't complicated. The illegal invasion continues apace not because of antiquated laws but because today we have weak politicians. You are obsessed. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 4, 2023 14:06:39 GMT
OK it can only ever be opinion, but there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Thatcher would have allowed a cross channel invasion. It would have been stopped immediately. And I'll tell you why... a) Thatcher had bigger balls than any prime minister in my lifetime. b) Her opposite numbers across the channel knew it. And that's the big difference, it really isn't complicated. The illegal invasion continues apace not because of antiquated laws but because today we have weak politicians. You are obsessed. It's been said before, or was it possessed! lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 4, 2023 14:10:19 GMT
Thatcher did stop the boats. Ask any 1980s shipbuilder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 4, 2023 14:36:35 GMT
Thatcher did stop the boats. Ask any 1980s shipbuilder. How very droll, you're on a roll this afternoon Monte. Shouldn't you be in the fields entertaining the yokels... |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 4, 2023 15:18:22 GMT
When in 1978 Thatcher was asked during a TV interview what she would do if the miners went on strike and tried to bring down the government, as they did with Edward Heath, her reply was: "Well! One doesn't apply one's Final Solution until one's tried everything else!" Her supporters reacted favourably to this comment. Now ... if the question had been about boat people coming here by the tens of thousands ... ? As for the Ethiopian famine she said: "I heartily agree that something should be done about it ... but who's going to pay for it?" A thought has just occurred to me ... all those mines she closed ... plenty of space to house illegal immigrants! Labour closed more uneconomical coal mines before Thatcher became PM, many were closed because they had fallen into disrepair during the long miners strike they were not maintained and too expensive to put back into use, even if that had been done, the mines could not compete with cheaper coal from abroad, many of our factories had removed coal burning boilers and changed to more efficient oil fed boilers. The demand for coal had fallen over the years , Trains no longer ran on coal, homes were no longer heated by coal fires |
|
